RE: Change in definition of RDF literals

At 13:44 22/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > At 11:25 22/05/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > >(a) there can be entailments
> > >that hold for XML literals due to canonicalization that do not
> > >hold for plain literals and
> >
> > Since our recent decision to handle canonicalization in the
> > parser [1][2],
> > I don't think it's correct to say that C14N has any impact on
> > entailment
> > relationships between RDF graphs.
>
>It doesn't for XML literals. But if we treat plain literals
>as XML literals, then some entailments that do not hold for
>plain literals will then hold, since if the plain literals
>are not canonicalized, they are not equal, but if they are
>canonicalized (being treated as XML) then they could be.

I don't see the problem here:  a parser would apply C14N for 
parseType="Literal", and not for other literals.  I.e. there is still a 
*syntactic* distinction, but could all be treated the same in the graph.

>Martin had suggested that plain literals and XML literals
>could be treated the same. I was simply pointing out that,
>while we *could* do that, I think most users would not be
>very happy with such a solution.

By "treated the same", I interpreted that to apply to the graph, not the 
RDF/XML syntax (see above).  So I'm still not seeing where a problem would be.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 17:59:03 UTC